David [and another post] raise an important extension to the range of activities that count as 'simulation', namely role-playing exercises.
I don't know if I'm right on this, but I imagine most folk would describe as 'simulations' a whole lot of models that do not exactly replicate the real-world, ranging from PC games like The Sims, or SimCity, right through to board-games like the Beer Game [which is indeed a great exercise] or the military strategy game Risk, and even role-playing exercises. Perhaps the key consideration is that the simulation should be fit for purpose, which means we need to be clear what its purpose actually is. There is certainly a distinction in the simulation tradition I am familiar with between models for decision-making, and models for learning. Even those for decision-making, though, do not have to replicate the real world exactly, just close enough to be confident that one decision is better than another, within reasonable bounds of uncertainty about factors that are not precisely known.
It should not be a problem learning within the limits of simple sims, provided the debrief includes a question like "We know this is not exactly playing out like the real world, so what differences might we find in the case under discussion, and how might those differences change the learning from this experience?" If I understand Mark Fenton-O'Creevy correctly, I think he is making three important points [1] in the real world few problems are well defined or have a single correct solution. [Business simulations can often generate multiple routes to similar performance results]. [2] generalised theories are unable to encompass the contingencies of the real world. [3] simulations used well, seek not to provide "an answer" or a single solution, but create a starting point for dialogue about linkages between theory, frameworks and real life as well as the dynamic nature of the problems they illustrate. None of which seem to require that a simulation should exactly match the real world.
Strictly, the only simulation that truly replicates the real-world is the real world itself [not even aircraft simulators are 100% precise]. John Sterman at MIT was amongst the first, I believe, to use the term 'microworld' to describe relatively simple simulations that nevertheless depict a small part of how a particular situation plays out over time. I think this terms originates with Seymour Papert, [1980, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Mindstorms</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state></st1:place>: Basic Books], which astonishingly for its day looked forward to a time when computers would be ubiquitous and allow people to learn by playing with caricatures of real-world phenomena.
Elyssebeth's question .. "Why is it seen to be so complicated / even controversial to use 'simulation' as a teaching/learning format?" is spot-on. The only answers I can think of [not mutually exclusive] are
[a] most management teaching is based on frameworks that are felt to be too sophisticated to be adequately conveyed in a simple sim [though the Bass diffusion model from an earlier post is a counter-example]
[b] since most management frameworks result from cross-sectional analysis, especially linear regression, they are not capable of portraying how things change through time and thus are not worth putting into simulations [though many of the 'big' simulation games like MarkStrat and Capsim manage to convey extremely rich and dynamic situations, whilst still incorporating such static frameworks .. and we might ask if our theories are much use in any case if they cannot capture dynamics!].
[c] teachers believe real-world situations are so full of abstract issues, such as leadership or culture, that there is no value in using anything that lacks such features
[d] instructors may be put off by the learning investment needed to understand simulations they have not developed themselves [though a colleague of mine does a brilliant job of teaching with a simulation that he has never even used himself!] .. and we accept the need to invest time in taking on other new teaching materials, such as case studies
[e] perhaps people fear that if they are not orchestrating class, then the learning is out of their control [the flip-side of this coin being that students can undertake many hours of productive learning without requiring teacher-time, which is a significant consideration in these times of pressure on teacher productivity]
[f] teachers who did not themselves grow up learning from simulations do not see their value, so younger instructors may be less averse
[g] perhaps there is an impression that simulations are necessarily tricky to set up, complex to run, and take inordinate amounts of time .. which may be true of some big games, but is not at all necessarily true - I use a couple of simple games that a group can their heads around in about 10 minutes and learn from productively in less than an hour.
I am not sure these resisting forces can hold on for much longer - students themselves have now all grown up with simulations as part of their learning, and may be losing patience with static frameworks and class-room debate as the dominant teaching philosophy, no matter how rich the web-site/video support that is included. There also seem to be signs that buyers of management education are expecting to see simulation activities included in the executive programs provided by business schools and other trainers.
Kim Warren: <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">London</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Business</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place>
-----Original Message-----
From: David Fraser [mailto:david_nz@XTRA.CO.NZ]
Sent: 04 September 2006 22:40
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Simulation and its role in education
Just an idle comment. :-)
In my view, "simulation" implies that there is a similarity to real live
situations. Hence when pilots use a simulator, they feel it is the real
thing, and so they should. However, in my experience, we can not adequately
set up a "management" situation to correspond adequately to real life.
(Having said that, do "The Apprentice" or "Hells Kitchen" or Monster Garage"
qualify. What about "Dragons Den". Both are highly dramatic and Tverised
for our entertainment. But do the participants learn any real life skills
of enduring value?)
If "simulations" are then difficult to make real, perhaps there is another
name that should be used like "an exercise" or "a game".
Anyway. To the point. The best "exercise" I have participate in was "the
Beer Game" from the Fifth Discipline - Senge. I played this as part of my
MBA program (1995) when discussing interconnected systems and institutional
knowledge. I have forgotten much from the MBA program but not this game nor
the lessons from it.
So the questions are... Why did this game work for me? Was my positive
experience universal or unique? Anecdotally, many in the class did not
enjoy the game. However I do not know if they learnt the lessons even
though they did not enjoy the experience.
Kind regards
David Fraser
-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion
[mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of M.P.Fenton-OCreevy
Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2006 2:09 a.m.
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Simulation and its role in education
I think in this discussion about simulations it is useful to pay attention
to the difference between the intended and the unintended curriculum.
To explain what I mean by this let me use my own experience of studying Pure
Mathematics at undergraduate level. Looking back on the experience I
acquired a great deal of knowledge (about ring theory, topological spaces
etc) and some skills in analysis, deduction and abduction. However, I also
learned (without realising it) that all problems have a (correct) solution
and that problems come well packaged and clearly defined. In my first job
(working in a government research lab looking at the thermal behavior of
buildings) I had some rather painful unlearning to do. Few problems were
well defined (or even defined at all) and it was usually unclear if there
was a workable solution never might a single correct answer. Of then the
skill was in framing the right problem rather than seeking an elegant answer
to the puzzle at hand.
Most of the theory that we teach students is wrong, in the important sense
that in making theory sufficiently abstract to generalise to many situations
we throw away many of the contingencies which apply in the real world of
application. There is abundant research evidence that what is leaned in the
classroom often gets poorly transferred into working practice. We need ways
of teaching students the important skills of translating between theory and
practice. An ideal route is to study alongside work or real world projects
and to continually move between study and practice. However, this is often
not possible. Hence we look for routes to provide students with the
opportunity to grapple with applying theory in complex and messy settings
which mimic some of the difficulties of real world applications. Hence the
value in such approaches as role plays, case studies and simulations. Just
as in the workplace bad learning can happen as well as good and some of this
depends on how we use these tools and how we assess students' learning from
them.
Badly used the unintended curriculum of a session with a simulation concerns
second guessing the rules of the simulation and trying to 'play the system'
to get maximum score. On the other hand if the simulation is used as a
starting point for dialogue between students about the process of applying
particular theories and frameworks in dynamic and complex settings, then the
realism of the simulation is less the point than the quality of the dialogue
it stimulates and the learning which can come out of it.
I am incidentally a real fan of Kim's simulations which reflect a very
important aspect of real world problems - the dynamic nature of business
problems.
Mark
Prof. Mark Fenton-O'Creevy
Director, Programmes and Curriculum, OU <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Business</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place> Director, Practice
Based Professional Learning Centre & Professor of Organisational Behaviour
Open University Walton Hall Milton Keynes MK7 6AA <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region>
e-mail: m.p.fenton-ocreevy@open.ac.uk
(DL) +44 (0)1908-655804
Fax: +44 (0)1908-655898
________________________________
From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of
Elyssebeth Leigh
Sent: Mon 04/09/2006 00:21
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: Simulation and its role in education
I like Kim's comment about simulations as not needing to be closely
realistic to all aspects of what is being represented.
And am wondering just how close to 'real' a lecture format is? Why must
'simulation' be 'adequately real' when lectures are so clearly not so?
My experience of the 'work world' is that the only time I was 'lectured' at
work was when I was perceived to have been doing something wrong, and
therefore in need of chastisement.
At all other times I was either shown how to do tasks, in a cumulative
manner, that helped me grasp the whole of a task (just as simulations can do
in learning contexts) or asked to observe someone else in action and then
discuss what I had seen, etc Simulations - almost by definition - cannot be
expected to be 'fully realistic' (that is after all 'real life') and
therefore will never be able to 'adequately represent [full] reality.' This
is not thier intent or purpose.
A good simulations designer - and user - is able to focus on the aspects of
the 'real' required for consideration in relation to chosen specific
learning topics.
So my question is - "Why is it seen to be so complicated / even
controversial to use 'simulation' as a teaching/learning format?"
And, in thinking about possible answers to the question, I was reminded this
morning (via "Citation de la semaine" a lovely weekly quote resource) of
Carl Jung's observation that "Whatever we fight in the outside world is also
a battle in our inner lives" and offer it as an aspect of what I experience
as part of the nature of the 'battle' about the use of simulation in
tertiary learning contexts.
Elyssebeth Leigh